4 ms·

Arbitration agreements are a massive, massive scam and the fact that they can be forced as part of your employment contract needs to go. It allows companies to

Arbitration agreements are a massive, massive scam and the fact that they can be forced as part of your employment contract needs to go. It allows companies to sweep away shitty corporate behavior and avoid addressing the actual issues with their workplace in addition to overwhelmingly tilting the system against employees.

windexh8er 8y ago
My rule of thumb is if I can't opt out of arbitration then I can't work for you. Most established orgs give you a grace period after start date to request opt-out to legal and I've run into no flack for doing just that. However I've learned from experience that it is critical to not be bound by it - especially if your pay is tied to a metric or a quota and/or a portion of your package is options/RSUs.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- lsc 8y ago
  so... serious question, and I'm asking you, 'cause it sounds like you are implying that you've sued your employer. is suing your employer a seriously career-impairing move? I mean, I think most court proceedings are public records, and it seems like if the fact that you sued your last employer for something came up in your background check, I personally assume that'd be as bad or worse than an old felony conviction, from the employer's perspective. Are people who sued their employer a protected class in the USA, or is there some other reason why this isn't a career-ending event?
  - gcb0 8y ago
    it probably won't impact you.
    - lsc 8y ago
      well, yes. For a lot of reasons, I'm not likely to sue my employer. But, that doesn't mean I'm not curious.
  - windexh8er 8y ago
    I didn't imply I sued them. Keep in mind that suing someone has the implication of going public. You don't need to sue someone to be bound by arbitration. Generally legal conversations can and will happen prior to the event of suing your employer. This is something most people would gloss over or not consider. If you sign arbitration you have no wiggle room - because it is all up to the company, and they likely view arbitration as in their best interest. But if you have opted out you can go get your own attorney and present your claim without getting into a public legal battle. If you hold the cards it is in their best interest to negotiate, settle and not get sued (as that becomes public and is bad for both sides). Generally when making legal agreements the "career ending events" are protected as part of the settlement. It would be amiss to forget to CYA in your negotiation. This may include language that explicitly states anyone from that company talking about your externally. Obviously they're incented to keep that bargain or you can then go down the path of defamation and further liabilities.
sjg007 8y ago
This is why you unionize.
- Apocryphon 8y ago
  Seriously. I wonder what alternative solution that union skeptics have to offer for this problem.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - vkou 8y ago
    They'll tell you that nobody's forcing you to work for a company that requires you to undergo forced arbitration. I tell them that nobody's forcing them to work for a union shop.
    - scarejunba 8y ago
      Yes, I'm certainly not against a union-optional situation. If specific companies want to be union-only, that's fine by me. I'll go work elsewhere. If those companies can change their minds and admit scabs, that's okay by me. If a bunch of people want to group together to bargain, that's their right. I've gotten together with my co-workers and spoken to bosses before. The only problem is when state regulation is used to enforce this. I'm not okay with that.
      - hoaw 8y ago
        It can't be a right if it isn't regulated. Unionizing is a legally recognized international right. It isn't really optional. Then of course you can argue how it should work, but that is largely a different matter. You want to waive that right that's fine, but it is just that. Anyone else who wants to keep their right should get to.
    - eeZah7Ux 8y ago
      I get what you mean but the "nobody's forcing you" arguments are all fallacious. Life it's not a dichotomy between forced and free.

windexh8er 8y ago

My rule of thumb is if I can't opt out of arbitration then I can't work for you. Most established orgs give you a grace period after start date to request opt-out to legal and I've run into no flack for doing just that. However I've learned from experience that it is critical to not be bound by it - especially if your pay is tied to a metric or a quota and/or a portion of your package is options/RSUs.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
lsc 8y ago
so... serious question, and I'm asking you, 'cause it sounds like you are implying that you've sued your employer. is suing your employer a seriously career-impairing move? I mean, I think most court proceedings are public records, and it seems like if the fact that you sued your last employer for something came up in your background check, I personally assume that'd be as bad or worse than an old felony conviction, from the employer's perspective. Are people who sued their employer a protected class in the USA, or is there some other reason why this isn't a career-ending event?
- gcb0 8y ago
  it probably won't impact you.
  - lsc 8y ago
    well, yes. For a lot of reasons, I'm not likely to sue my employer. But, that doesn't mean I'm not curious.
- windexh8er 8y ago
  I didn't imply I sued them. Keep in mind that suing someone has the implication of going public. You don't need to sue someone to be bound by arbitration. Generally legal conversations can and will happen prior to the event of suing your employer. This is something most people would gloss over or not consider. If you sign arbitration you have no wiggle room - because it is all up to the company, and they likely view arbitration as in their best interest. But if you have opted out you can go get your own attorney and present your claim without getting into a public legal battle. If you hold the cards it is in their best interest to negotiate, settle and not get sued (as that becomes public and is bad for both sides). Generally when making legal agreements the "career ending events" are protected as part of the settlement. It would be amiss to forget to CYA in your negotiation. This may include language that explicitly states anyone from that company talking about your externally. Obviously they're incented to keep that bargain or you can then go down the path of defamation and further liabilities.

sjg007 8y ago

This is why you unionize.

Apocryphon 8y ago
Seriously. I wonder what alternative solution that union skeptics have to offer for this problem.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- vkou 8y ago
  They'll tell you that nobody's forcing you to work for a company that requires you to undergo forced arbitration. I tell them that nobody's forcing them to work for a union shop.
  - scarejunba 8y ago
    Yes, I'm certainly not against a union-optional situation. If specific companies want to be union-only, that's fine by me. I'll go work elsewhere. If those companies can change their minds and admit scabs, that's okay by me. If a bunch of people want to group together to bargain, that's their right. I've gotten together with my co-workers and spoken to bosses before. The only problem is when state regulation is used to enforce this. I'm not okay with that.
    - hoaw 8y ago
      It can't be a right if it isn't regulated. Unionizing is a legally recognized international right. It isn't really optional. Then of course you can argue how it should work, but that is largely a different matter. You want to waive that right that's fine, but it is just that. Anyone else who wants to keep their right should get to.
  - eeZah7Ux 8y ago
    I get what you mean but the "nobody's forcing you" arguments are all fallacious. Life it's not a dichotomy between forced and free.